This concept basically destroyed Western military dominance in the 21st century.

This concept basically destroyed Western military dominance in the 21st century.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    what blew up today?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      My confidence in our ability to last more than 3 days in a war with China in the Pacific.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >3 days in a war with China in the Pacific
        chang, americas logistical tonnage that is solely used for supporting combat blue water ships is magnitudes greater than your whole "blue" water fleet combined. Power projection made the US Navy very good at supplying their forward deployed ships

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        NO ONE CARRS ABOUT THAT DECAYING ANT KINGDOM FULL OF KEKS THEY ARE LITERALLY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FRICKING PLANET
        FRICKING INDIANS I HATE THFM SO MUCH.

        JUST FRICKING FIGHT CHINA YOURSELVES YOU BROWN STREET SHITTER

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Lmao Black person we invaded a landlocked country and 20+ years and when we were bored we left all our shit in the gutter and went and bought another. I would like to see West Taiwan attempt to supply their "troops" across a small body of water they apparently own. Has russia taught you nothing these past few years?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Afghanistan had Pakistan to help with the whole logistics issue of maintaining a presence in one of the most dirt-poor landlocked regions on the planet. Bizarre you'd even bring that up in relation to China, it's a completely different environment with completely different requirements.
          >I would like to see West Taiwan attempt to supply their "troops" across a small body of water they apparently own
          You would like that because it's an obvious death trap that the PLA themselves are aware of, as well as not being the only choice.
          They could just as easily decide to lay siege to the entire island which is entirely dependent on food and fuel imports to keep their society and MIC running, then simply ration, wait, and practice A2/AD.
          Good luck trying to Berlin Airlift that shitshow with the stagnant naval capacity the USN has over the past few decades. Problem there is lack of regenerative shipbuilding capability, among others.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I’m sorry are you suggesting the Chinese navy wouldn’t get BTFO within 30 days of trying to blockade Taiwan?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              This isn't WW1, you can enforce the practical effects of a blockade without the physical presence of ships regardless, especially considering Taiwan's close geographical proximity to the mainland. PLAN assets would help but they're not required.
              Instead of pulling off beach landings, they can saturate Taiwan with MLRS, SRBMs, all the short-range stuff. Perform continuous SEAD/DEAD missions with their extensive air force. Use all assets available to strike static yet critical infrastructure - port machinery, power stations, refineries, airports, power plants, food warehouses, transport hubs, etc, then see how long Taiwan lasts without imports coming in, meaning no food nor energy.

              The US themselves aren't exactly confident in the Taiwanese people lasting long under these conditions, for what it's worth: https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3222&context=parameters
              >Question 1: Given Taiwan’s dependency on imported food, how resilient would its agricultural sector be in the context of a military attack and trade embargo by China?
              >The current analysis assumes Taiwan would have enough food to feed its population during a naval blockade for six months
              Six months. Not exactly an optimistic scenario given that the island imports nearly 70% of its food and 95%+ of its energy (https://www.cfe-dmha.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=sJ7hhDPJFl8%3D&portalid=0)

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Six months
                So what you are saying is that there's six months to bomb China into the ground ?
                Sounds long enough.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Good luck trying to bomb their MLRS in those 6 months in forested, hilly terrain surrounded by contested airspace. Reminder that SCUD hunting proved largely ineffective during Desert Storm, and that was with total coalition air supremacy across flat, open desert.
                That's just one component you have to deal with in making sure Taiwan doesn't get to the point of mass starvation before surrender.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                He didn't say take out their MLRS, he said bomb China into the ground. That means infrastructure & factories. Shipyards. Etc. And of course if Taiwan gets blockaded then any Chinese shipping in southeast Asia is also getting sunk.

                Oh, what, you thought China would attack Taiwanese cities and nobody would attack Chinese cities? Lol. Lmao, even.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I suggest for you to open up a basic geographic map if you think
                >bomb China into the ground
                is as easy as you think it is given procurement and distance realities. Also
                >hurr 3 gorges dam
                redditor drivel is not an acceptable answer before you even think about bringing that up

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >spend 20 years in a sandbox
          >accomplish nothing
          >gift the enemy tons of your toys when you leave
          imagine bragging about this

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            imagine being such a contrarian moron that you think the guns and trucks left behind for the ANA were a huge blow to American military readiness

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              All that night vision and they can't spare one for me 🙁

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    a bold claim, here's a (you)

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I always knew I was a tactical genius. This was my exact strategy for assignments in university

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      you're management material

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >you see, not having 20,000 rusted cold war tanks hulls makes you incredible weak
    >it doesn't matter if your weapons are 1960s tech, you can't innovate and by the 6 month you're forced to import lawnmowers from iran
    implessiev

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      How can you even type this without a hint of irony after watching the current shit show?

      We're going to be caught in the same nonsense, except this time we won't have those deep reserves to outlast them.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        What, are you implying the USA are going to invade Mexico or Canada and fail miserably?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        political moronation and restriction to the industry
        during the pandemics there's no problem to ramp production lines for a yer new tech (something terrible complex too)

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >without those deep reserves
        Why, whats wrong with our current ones?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          While the Army and Marines have a pretty good stockpile in terms of Vehicles and armor; The same can not be said for the Air Force or Navy, The Air Force and Navy together only have around 1400ish combat capable planes of all types in stockpile.
          Now the Navy's mothball fleet is basically non existent as the Navy seems to have an aversion to putting ships that are at one of the NISMFs in mothball and instead just scraps them all.
          Kitty Hawk and Kennedy both should been put into permanent mothball; There are multiple destroyers and cruisers that should be put into mothball but are instead going to get sold for a fricking penny and scrapped

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >only 1400 combat capable planes in stockpile
            which is more then the vast majority of nations have aircraft period.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              It should be higher, we have lots of empty land to store planes

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I think a good goal is to have more than the entire rest of the planet combined. That works whether it is fighters or bombers or stealth or big ass nuclear bomb trucks or carriers or whatever.
                Once you reach that level, and we have, I don't see a reason to keep going. It isn't like someone could zoom past you without you knowing in time to pull way back out ahead.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Buddy, do you have any idea how easy it is to churn out planes compared to getting actual pilots?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              There are thousands of commercial pilots to conscript you fricking moronic Black person

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Commercial pilots require at best only minimally less training than complete newbies to become actually useful combat pilots.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Kitty Hawk and Kennedy both should been put into permanent mothball
            LMAO. Shitty Kitty was literally falling apart towards the end and would have gone full Kutsnezov-tier if we tried mothballing the old tub.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What shitshow?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Ahem, CLEARLY because you’re having to dig into reserves of artillery shells to send to a bunch of mouth-breathing not-Russians-we-swear who can’t kick literal Snow Nigerians out of their little Eastern Bloc dumpster of a nation, then CLEARLY this means that you WON’T be able to just naval blockade/ no flight zone China into YET ANOTHER collapse and Fortnite dance on the decks of your carriers as we collapse into another Century of Humiliation, white boy
        Uh huh.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      OP is a moron but has a point. For some reason the ammo production lesson has to be relearned every major war. Nobody stockpiles enough ammunition before hand. They always run low and have to scramble to up production.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >For some reason the ammo production lesson has to be relearned every major war
        chicken and egg; war happens because some nations grow weak and other nations think they can take advantage of that

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >OP is a moron but has a point
        No you don't, wumao.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That ain't JIT

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >brown person hears of new concept
    >hammers it down so it fits alongside his pre-established worldview
    very cute and adorable

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It gets too much shit from people who need a buzzword imo. JIT operates all around us and has been immensely successful in changing the way we approach groceries and economies of scale.

    The problems come with poor logistics and general supply-chain frickery because it's essentially a combination of central planning and data to optimise efficiency. But when you go the opposite route you're creating enormous cost and wastage that in a worst case scenario has useless shit piling up at an end point that they have to store of throw away i.e. the problem isn't the process, it's that large organisations on the scale of the military are useless and it's a small miracle you don't regularly have people starving to death.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Being against JIT is literally being against efficiency, that said strategic stockpiles should absolutely be a thing

      I have seen multiple posts on /k/ that applaud the Russian MIC for "not being for profit" as if that was a good thing, these morons somehow missed on some 70 years of "not for profit" central planning being absolutely shit on by the capitalist economies.

      [...]

      I'm just going to assume that you have no fricking idea what you are talking about and watched some moronic youtube video that decided that all modern problems are due to this singular thing.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        JIT doesn't take into account future acute, high volume requirements for long lead time/ fragile LCM items. It requires a robust LCM, and is completely shattered by disruptions. JIT is perfectly fine for consumer goods like cars, food, etc., but is incapable of providing in an active military context.
        t. retired Navy logistics desk jockey and current LCM tech for Locksneed.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Correct.
          Another problem that many manufacturers are currently experiencing with it lies not so much in the method itself but a confluence of different factors making jit particularly hard to work with (mainly the company's fault).
          >spend 30 years gutting industry and hyperoptimizing remaining production in non-intuitive and convoluted ways
          >only keep on boomers terrified of losing their job
          >don't make any effort to develop new talent
          >stretch supply chain as hard as you can to gain a marginal increase in profit off each part
          >take quotes as gospel and assume that other suppliers won't run into production issues
          >improperly plan or think out how to secure low volume high throughput components
          Between boomer retirement, Covid and international disagreements and trade frickery, every manufacturer I deal with is shitting the bed hard right now (funny enough the only exception is a couple firearms manufacturers).

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Fair, .mil goods are probably special in that demand is either absolutely nothing or full surge. But there is no way to not have JIT in everything that's involved in military goods production, e.g. steels and whatnot

          but they were prepared for it, in accordance to their moronic military doctrine which is, human lives don't matter until they win.

          our military doctrine seems to make us believe we can win a war against china in a short time because we're just so must more advanced and smarter than they are, that their ancient missiles in large numbers don't matter, apparently.

          Russians actually ran out of their good weapons like Iskanders and Kalibrs which is why they can only fire them in trickles anymore. Their strategy was to capture Ukraine in a fast surge so they don't have to even touch their stockpiles

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Perfectly put. Aircraft test equipment is a classic example.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's not even good for most consumer goods as even minor shocks turn into an absolute shitshow when you have no redundancy of things like machine parts to weather whatever disruption hits you. 2020 was hell.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I have seen multiple posts on /k/ that applaud the Russian MIC for "not being for profit" as if that was a good thing
        oh yeah
        either those morons believe that a nonprofit gubmint agency is the paragon of human efficiency, in which case I have a couple bridges to sell
        or
        it missed them totally that decades and decades of inefficient lossmaking weapons development and production would someday end really badly

        JIT doesn't take into account future acute, high volume requirements for long lead time/ fragile LCM items. It requires a robust LCM, and is completely shattered by disruptions. JIT is perfectly fine for consumer goods like cars, food, etc., but is incapable of providing in an active military context.
        t. retired Navy logistics desk jockey and current LCM tech for Locksneed.

        depends on implementation
        JIT is about streamlining supply chains to eliminate inefficient surpluses, and can be tailored for all kinds of timelines
        for example, if it's forecast that the stockpile needs 10,000 cruise missiles by 1985, JIT means you build towards that, instead of panic buying as many missiles as you can and worrying about the surplus later
        like a lot of high-level theoretical management concepts it's more of a philosophy
        t. MBA

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          JIT doesn't take into account future acute, high volume requirements for long lead time/ fragile LCM items. It requires a robust LCM, and is completely shattered by disruptions. JIT is perfectly fine for consumer goods like cars, food, etc., but is incapable of providing in an active military context.
          t. retired Navy logistics desk jockey and current LCM tech for Locksneed.

          Thing is JIT is opposite to drones supply form China, there is huge stocks of everything along their production chain. Especially in electronics. Current year lead time of 6-8 month for many chips is not uncommon (though it is better now, it was completely borked during Covid insanity) and they break schedule all the time so manufactures act accordingly. Years of chips stocks and components these chips use (assembled boards etc) is new meta.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What makes a drone more useful than a missile?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        > these morons somehow missed on some 70 years of "not for profit" central planning being absolutely shit on by the capitalist economies.

        huuuhhh ackshually that wasn't REAL central planning, chud!

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It works great until there are supply chain disruptions like pandemics and war

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        A proper "JIT" system would always build in contingencies and look for potential upcoming constraints.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah the contingency is to keep a lot of shit in reserve

          JIT cannot make stingers, javelins, 155mm shells fast enough as those designs never modernized and the manufacturing capacity of the U.S. shrunk from when those were designed.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Yeah the contingency is to keep a lot of shit in reserve
            No it isn't you fricking moron lmao, that's the dumbest possible way to do it. Did you know that people do logistics planning for a living?

            If it's really a topic that interests you then the two books to read are Moving Mountains by LTGEN Pagonis and The Toyota Way by Jeff Liker. The first will help you understand what the challenges and limitations of what you think is how to have a robust military logistics system are, the second is your intro primer to how you start to think about building resilient JIT logistics, and what the challenges and limitations are there.

            Then, after reading them, maybe someday you won't be a total homosexual and insufferably annoying in conversations like this.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah the contingency is to keep a lot of shit in reserve

              JIT cannot make stingers, javelins, 155mm shells fast enough as those designs never modernized and the manufacturing capacity of the U.S. shrunk from when those were designed.

              Final addition: The items you're talking about use a stockpiling logistics model because they were all produced before JIT supply chaining was technologically possible or invented. Western countries are still sitting on their strategic war stocks of things like 155, despite them being enormous, and not sending them to the Ukraine faster than they are manufactured because the war stocks are those country's stocks and no one wants to invest in new mass manufacturing for obsolescent munitions instead of running down supplies at a the rate afforded by amortized production unless they have their own existential war. If countries sent their own war stocks to the Ukraine then they'd just be risk transfering.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >read some gay businesstard horsehockey
              No thanks, I value my time

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >All my opinions are uninformed and worthless.
                Yes, we know.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Still more valuable than a business or econ gay's

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    but first you need to invent pallet technology

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >random ignorant mong discovers lame old hackneyed buzzword, unable to accept its reality
    >blames everything on it
    >subtly implies the current war is going LE BAD

    Are you a gullible moron, or are you samegayging?

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Literally the complete opposite you fricking moron

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >ITT everyone forgets the saying "you go to war with the army you have not the one you want"
    JIT is super efficient for consumer goods because people won't die and borders significantly change if there's a hold up. With war materiel though you need a stockpile at hand and the ability to quickly replenish or replace it, failing to do so is betting on your army taking negligible losses while decimating your enemy. While such a mentality is fine for bombing dune coons, it falls apart when talking about fighting another industrialized nation

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Once again, JIT is a philosophy and not a set-in-stone industry standard.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      So we're just pretending the US doesnt have the largest stockpile of military equipment and raw goods of planet fricking earth? What is this third wold cope thread i've stumbled into?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        third world cope thread, in a nutshell

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >ITT everyone forgets the saying "you go to war with the army you have not the one you want"
      that's objectively true though and is a historical fact. there are very few instances where a country gets to decide the time and place of it's next conflict and prepares properly for it. just look at russia and ukraine, russia easily could have held off for years until they were actually prepared for it but instead they decided to just wing it.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        but they were prepared for it, in accordance to their moronic military doctrine which is, human lives don't matter until they win.

        our military doctrine seems to make us believe we can win a war against china in a short time because we're just so must more advanced and smarter than they are, that their ancient missiles in large numbers don't matter, apparently.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >state of the art high tech is bullshit
          >we need large quantities of good ol fashioned proven hardware
          this is just Spreyposting in disguise
          break out the P-51s boys, we'll need tens and thousands of them

          Correct.
          Another problem that many manufacturers are currently experiencing with it lies not so much in the method itself but a confluence of different factors making jit particularly hard to work with (mainly the company's fault).
          >spend 30 years gutting industry and hyperoptimizing remaining production in non-intuitive and convoluted ways
          >only keep on boomers terrified of losing their job
          >don't make any effort to develop new talent
          >stretch supply chain as hard as you can to gain a marginal increase in profit off each part
          >take quotes as gospel and assume that other suppliers won't run into production issues
          >improperly plan or think out how to secure low volume high throughput components
          Between boomer retirement, Covid and international disagreements and trade frickery, every manufacturer I deal with is shitting the bed hard right now (funny enough the only exception is a couple firearms manufacturers).

          so because of all these other unrelated reasons, that's why exercise doesn't work and Michael Phelps doesn't ackshually need to swim that much to win his medals, he's bluffing

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe you should read my post again senpai. The other unrelated factors make the good method hard to work with.
            To use your analogy, exercise isn't helping Michael Phelps that much because he's using poor form while drinking a 5th of vodka every day and getting 4 hours of sleep at night.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >The other unrelated factors make the good method hard to work with
              right
              and we know that's not a reason to tell Michael Phelps he's fricking up and he should knock off the exercise, in fact he should continue the training but quit the vodka

              but we think the USA should stop "exercising", and should go back to an older training regimen in which a fifth of vodka is on the menu, because boohoohoo, it's too hard to train without the vodka

              another thing people don't get about JIT (and various other management practices) is that they describe what they're doing that works. however, not everyone can pull it off, for various reasons - unsuitability, incompetence, a random fricking recession. that doesn't mean the method sucks.

              case in point,

              Even in a shill thread its absolutely right.
              Seen this silly concept shut down mines for weeks.

              The price of a delayed longwall... 100s of millions

              was that because JIT doesn't work in general?
              or was it because said mine didn't accurately forecast their requirements, or streamline their supply chain adequately to deal with eventualities?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You've almost talked yourself into agreeing with the people you're arguing with

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not at all, I'm pointing out that circumstances matter in how we evaluate case studies.

                also, what's the alternative? ditch JIT practices entirely? do you guys even know what that entails? it means at every stage of production of say, a Tomahawk missile, you build more components than you forecast you need, "just in case" there's a holdup and you need more parts to keep the line running. have you considered the impact of that practice on final unit costs?

                at a macro level, let's say we foresee we need 15 carrier groups, 100 SSNs and 200 destroyers to combat the PLAN. but because LE JIT BAD, let's just build as many carriers, F-35Cs, SSNs and Burke IIIs as the economy can sustain, "just in case" we need more than we expect sooner than we expect

                is that a viable alternative?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Is your counter to the fact JIT is very vulnerable to disruptions, which are inevitable, that the alternative would be massive overproduction because that's just silly.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                no, I'm pointing out that massive overproduction costs massive money
                how much do you want to spend?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The Reagan era was delightfully transformative at unfricking the Hollow Force era before it. Good times. Cost a bit but the money went to US industry.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                And JIT has done wonders for making all sorts of products more affordable, including weapon systems. How much do you think a Burke is going to cost if we build it a little more wastefully? how much will that change in affordability affect fleet availability?
                >Cost a bit but the money went to US industry
                simply building shit regardless of effectiveness just so workers can get paid is a waste of money in the long run, we've tried that sort of thing before, it was so stupid that it became a synonym for stupidity
                also, that's sidestepping the question, which is:

                >is that a viable alternative?
                yeah, and when war breaks out and we lose the 3 carriers we keep in the pacific, you will see the error of your ways but then it'll be too late.

                so how much money shall we spend on stockpiling what weapons, hmm?

                Well I think we can all agree that it's rival JOI helps install discipline.

                >JOI helps install discipline.
                only if you buy the DLC from Wallace Corp

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >stockpile how much?
                Enough to replace losing everything we have, and the some.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >so how much money shall we spend

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >is that a viable alternative?
                yeah, and when war breaks out and we lose the 3 carriers we keep in the pacific, you will see the error of your ways but then it'll be too late.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >this is just Spreyposting in disguise
            >break out the P-51s boys, we'll need tens and thousands of them
            Well it works for russians in ukraine their stuff might be 40+ year old cold war stuff and in many cases 60+ year old but they have enough of it to slowly keep advancing, while going into war economy to build new stuff for next round of conquest.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              wayyyy too obvious friendo

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >wayyyy too obvious friendo
                If everything was fine with western model then ukraine would be (at least) slowly advancing not retreating. And baltics wouldn't be building bunkers on their borders because they are worried they are next(though they should be worried more than they are now since they are still spending less percent of gdp than they should and their draft is too short)

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >then ukraine would be (at least) slowly advancing not retreating
                says you? how would you know? what kind of expertise do you have to make that call? what kind of advanced combat modelling simulator do you have to know if they should be advancing or not? define "slowly", how many miles a day does your expertise predict?
                >If everything was fine with western model
                for the Nth fricking time, UKRAINE ISN'T FIGHTING WITH "THE WESTERN MODEL"

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Anon if they were prepared for it, they would have bothered to tell the troops doing the actual invasion what they were doing.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >our military doctrine seems
          Here's your mistake - you think you know what the strategy is and you make some very ignorant assumptions despite the US being very clear what they intend to do.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The US clearly isn't hiding any strategic geniuses.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    there will never be a war between peer countries that won't involve nukes.

    so why worry about JIT?

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's rather easy to go from a lean production line to a warehouse system.
    The opposite is harder.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Even in a shill thread its absolutely right.
    Seen this silly concept shut down mines for weeks.

    The price of a delayed longwall... 100s of millions

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Well I think we can all agree that it's rival JOI helps install discipline.

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The US militrary is one of a handful of militaries specifically not relying on JIT. You would know this if you read our public acquisition bids and plans that the GAO publishes. Of all the nations on the planet the US keeps the most goods readily available and frequently cycled. Or did you think the only nation with globe spanning bases, mid air refuel units, and continuously deployed carriers and subs somehow didn't forget out spare parts? Next you'll cite the F35 as an example while ignoring the store and continued manufacture of F16s

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is a stupid thread.
    >JIT identifies overproduction as waste
    >"Overproduction" is production in excess of that necessary to meet demand
    >Your customer sets demand
    If you want a strategic stockpile you just include that in your demand. Companies don't have wars of attrition to plan for, so they don't factor that in. Militaries do, which is why they specifically maintain strategic reserves. It's why everything that can be is palletized, why development revolves around block upgrades, why common calibers and mounting systems exist throughout western militaries. It's why America has almost as many F-35s flying as Russia has total air frames (3495 vs 3649). Other countries even pay to fly some of them. JIT works and the reserves are fine.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Broadly yes, but
      >America has almost as many F-35s flying
      >3496
      three thousand plus is the total order for all countries, but only a little over one thousand have been produced

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It didn't just destroy western military dominance, it destroyed western industry. It just doesn't work, along with all the other nip bullshit imported from Toyota because they had a good decade 40 years ago or whatever.

    I'm so glad I don't work in a factory anymore. When we collapse, the management class is directly responsible.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Toyota is still having a good decade.
      When the car industry tanked and the big 3 had to dip into taxpayer pockets to pay their light bills, Toyota was just fine. Again when the pandemic slowdown hit and the big 3 had to lay everyone off, Toyota paid their people to polish equipment.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Anon, the west isn't even in a wartime economy mode...

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      And it never will be again

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Bold claim. Why don't you put it to test, chang?

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    shit thread

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *